No. 2893 itself. In my view, Mutation Entry being a public document, has rightly been exhibited by the first Appellate Court. Even if the contents of Mutation Entry No. 2893 are taken as correct and even if it is assumed that the Mutation Entry was effected after service of notice to Plaintiffs, the Mutation Entry does not evidence exclusion of Plaintiffs from the suit properties. Mere mutation of name of one of the co-parceners to the suit property in exclusion of other coparceners , does not amount exclusion of such co-parceners from the suit property. To prove exclusion as contemplated under Section 110 of the Limitation Act, it is necessary to prove that the exclusion was by way of partition and one of the co-parcener is denied any share therein. The Mutation Entry made for fiscal purposes does not determine rights and entitlement of the parties in respect of the land in question. In my view, therefore Mutation Entry No. 2893 did not amount to exclusion of Plaintiffs from the suit property. The suit was thus not barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.
